Harmonious global patent harmonisation? B+ subgroup asks for comments

A little-known fact concerning the UK Intellectual Property Office's CEO, John Alty CB, is that he chairs a group of countries and organisations known as Group B+ which focuses on patent harmonisation. This B+ activity has been rumbling on for a while: Intellectual Property Watch picked up on it as long ago as November 2006 (here and here, when it actually got as far as a draft treaty). Anyway, a sub-group of Group B+ has been working to agree a new set of principles and objectives with some predictions as to outcomes, to encourage progress in this area.
They make interesting reading, outlining in particular agreed positions on issues like grace periodsWhile Merpel has been concerned as to why this group should call itself Group B+ and not something grander, this Kat has been busily posting the next thing to The Thoughts of Chairman Alty, which is his very own memo on the sub-group's progress. It reads like this:

PATENT HARMONISATION: OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES PAPER

Note by the Chair of
the Group B+ Sub-Group on Patent Harmonisation

1.This
note sets out the output to date of the sub-group and seeks views from
interested parties on the issues on which the sub-group are working.

The desirability of simplifying the international patent
system

2.The
goal of harmonising or aligning the patent laws and systems of different
countries is important. Increasingly
businesses are operating internationally. Emerging economies are becoming more
important. There are significant costs
and risks to innovation and growth associated with a fragmented international
framework.

3.This
is why many Governments and Patent Offices have continued to invest time and
effort in looking to create a simpler global patents system. So too have industry associations. In September 2014 the Group B+, an informal
group which consists of more than 40 Patent Offices or Government Departments
with responsibility for IP, agreed to set up a sub-group to make progress on
this issue. The sub-group consists of
representatives from the European Patent Office, Canada, Denmark, Germany,
Hungary, Japan, Korea, Spain and the United States.

Work of the sub-group

4.The
sub-group met in Washington in November 2014 and again in London in April 2015.
It agreed to seek to define some key
principles which it believed should guide the approach to a number of issues
where national legislation diverges.

5.This
note accompanies a document outlining the objectives and principles agreed in
April/May 2015 by the sub-group, together with accompanying commentary.

7.The
document clearly sets out where there is consensus within the sub-group, where
members of the sub-group currently hold differing views, and what further work
has been agreed to help resolve outstanding issues.

Patti identifies possible ways forward ...

8.Whilst
much work remains to be done before agreement could be reached, I believe that
the work of the sub-group has already added considerable value: consensus has
been reached on a number of issues where this was previously unclear. And even where there is no consensus, it has
been possible to identify possible ways forward, or understand better the
objectives the parties involved are trying to achieve. To build on this, further work has been agreed
in a number of areas. I am grateful to
members of the sub-group for the constructive way they have engaged with the
process.

Issues for comment

9.The
sub-group remains committed to operating as transparently as possible, ensuring
that all stakeholders have an opportunity to provide input into the development
of any final proposals. Members of Group
B+ and other interested parties are therefore invited to comment on the
document, with input particularly welcomed with regard to the following
questions.

·Where consensus has been reached within the
sub-group, are there any further considerations which need to be taken into
account when developing proposals?

·Where members of the sub-group currently hold
differing views, how should competing considerations be balanced, and what new
approaches might reconcile these differences?

·When developing proposals, how important is it
that the various aspects under consideration are progressed together, and which
aspects, if any, can be progressed separately?

·How should these and other discussions, for
instance amongst industry stakeholders, move forward, so that areas of
consensus can be formally agreed and implemented?

11.Following
this input, a report drawing on all the work done to date will be submitted to
the plenary meeting of Group B+ in Geneva in early October, which will agree
next steps.

JOHN ALTY

CEO UK Intellectual Property Office

Chair, Group B+ Sub-Group on Patent Harmonisation

June 2015

This Kat is pleased to see efforts being made to achieve harmonisation through discussion and consultation in an attempt to achieve consensus. He gives a Katpat to the sub-group's members for at least trying, even if they don't succeed, and he agrees that the result of discussion is positive even if all that is achieved is to enable those involved to have a clearer and better awareness of the basis for their disagreement.